Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Sunday, November 19, 2017

A woman says she was slugged in the face by a racist lunatic on the [New York City] subway -- all because she asked him to stop "manspreading." The aftermath of Thursday's violent exchange was caught on video as a good Samaritan tries to defend the woman and usher her violent attacker off the train. ... The woman said she put in her earbuds and tried to ignore the raging man as he continued his tirade. But the man then socked her in the mouth, bloodying her lip and knocking her head into the wall behind her, she said. That's when a man ran to the woman's defense and started grappling with the suspect.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

That guy who intervened did a great job at risk to his own personal safety. I don't know what he meant by "I'm not on duty" but he made it sound like he was a cop.

I hope the publicity results in criminal charges for the assaulter.

#1 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-19 10:52 AM | Reply

I'm getting tired of the term "manspreading." I've seen plenty of women on the train who spread out, or cover the seat next to them with bags, purses etc., but i never considered describing it with a term that was derogatory toward their entire gender.

Similar to "mansplain," as if a woman has never dismissed the opinion of a man and acted as though she knew better.

#2 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-19 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 5

I think the term aptly describes behavior by some men that's obnoxious on a crowded subway or similar space. Unlike a woman putting bags next to herself, the man is pushing his legs on somebody else. Both are rude but the one causing excessive physical contact is worse.

If you're a non-creepy man, you should also be aware that creepy men like to put themselves in physical contact with women on subways and the like. That makes women afraid. This is another reason to be physically respectful by reducing or eliminating contact with a rando woman in public.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-19 11:22 AM | Reply

I know I don't have much control over what words people say, but I agree with Joe that terms that specifically call out a gender are harmful, counter-productive, incorrectly suggest that only men have certain negative behaviors. I understand the words convey what they mean, but there has to be a better way.

#4 | Posted by LEgregius at 2017-11-19 12:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

I always thought spreading your legs was a signal that you were easy.

#5 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-19 01:11 PM | Reply

Women don't spread their legs crazy wide like men. It's called manspreading because men are the ones who do it.

#6 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-19 01:21 PM | Reply

"I agree with Joe that terms that specifically call out a gender are harmful"

This has come up often in IT, both with male/female connectors and master/slave arrangements.

But, people who think this way are sissies.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 01:24 PM | Reply

Women should be more sensitive to a man's...ahem...predicament.

How would they like it if they were carrying around a Polska kielbasa and a coupla boiled eggs between their legs 24/7 ?

/☺

#8 | Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-19 01:28 PM | Reply

Manspreading????

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-19 01:40 PM | Reply

How would they like it if they were carrying around a Polska kielbasa and a coupla boiled eggs between their legs 24/7 ?

/☺

Posted by madscientist at 2017-11-19 01:28 PM | Reply

Oh good grief. Spreading one's legs. OK Official blonde moment.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-19 01:47 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

It's called manspreading because men are the ones who do it.

If men are the only ones who do it, then why do we need to specify the gender with the term? You could just say "spreading." The point is that it becomes a pejorative for men in general; a suggestion that all men do it from time to time.

#11 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-19 05:41 PM | Reply

This guy is loco or just a gigantic jerk. Either way it needs to be addressed.

Manspreading...

Ya, well there are some guys that are way overboard with it. But at least for me sitting with my legs together is not "comfortable" - especially when it is hot... BUT in my experience there are plenty of women that do it and they are usually grossly obese - most of the grossly obese do it. People need to aware of their surroundings and considerate (contact).

I am with Rogers on avoiding contact with random women. Yes creeps do it and I don't want to be considered a creep. Personally I hate that I have to live my life "in fear" of every incidental contact because of perceptions caused by creeps. I prefer to stand than sit too close to a woman for that and the fact there are plenty of crazy women and you don't know what they will do. Heck I don't want to sit too close to a man either same reason - look at the nut in this story.

#12 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2017-11-19 06:02 PM | Reply

Apparently telling someone they're manspreading to their face can be triggering.

Irony.

#13 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-19 06:04 PM | Reply

Larry 'Wide-Stance' Craig comes to mind.

#14 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-11-19 06:10 PM | Reply

You could just say "spreading."

Or you could just acknowledge that we don't teach boys to sit with their legs closed, the way we teach girls to, and some of them grow up to be manspreaders.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 06:31 PM | Reply

I just do what I do as a man and if someone does not like it that is their problem, not mine, as I do no live my life to placete someone else's 'tender sensibilities'.

#16 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-19 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just do what I do as a man and if someone does not like it that is their problem, not mine, as I do no live my life to placete someone else's 'tender sensibilities'.

#16 | POSTED BY MSGT

Translation: I am the very type of inconsiderate jerk the word was coined to define. And I suck at spelling too....

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2017-11-19 06:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

@ MSGT

She was not threatening him or even insulting him when he punched her in the mouth.

Is this normal where you're from?

#18 | Posted by Tor at 2017-11-19 06:55 PM | Reply

"I do no live my life to placete someone else's 'tender sensibilities.'"

With that kind of badass attitude, maybe you ought to take a knee next time the national anthem comes on!

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 06:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-19 06:56 PM | FLAG: Spoken like a typical wimpy libbie who would do whatever dictated to do to not offend someone.

#20 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-19 07:32 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Sure. I'm the one who joined the military, so I could do whatever was dictated. You're the free spirit.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-19 07:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 3

The language is fine;

Mansplainining
Manspreading
Hepeating

It's a group of toxic masculinity behaviors that are unhelpful.

Women can do them too.

But the words are fine. If you're not a person who does these things, then it shouldn't bother you.

#22 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-19 09:25 PM | Reply

At least we can all agree that this would have turned out better if everyone in the train was armed.

#23 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2017-11-19 09:29 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#21 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2017-11-19 07:37 PM | FLAG: | FUNNY: 2: : Silly child, only one of your ilk would confuse military discipline with have libbies dictate how you deport yourself in public, as one of my ilk would define that as being a wussie :)

#24 | Posted by MSgt at 2017-11-19 11:50 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

men manspread.

women bagspread.

and the worst is when they hairspread

#25 | Posted by klifferd at 2017-11-19 11:58 PM | Reply

I think this is basic paternal human nature. It's about territory.

I'll agree it's ------------ to man spread. And the guy was wrong to punch the lady.

But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature.

The man wouldn't have done that if it was a bigger man who challenged his "spreading". He would have known what the response would have been. Women want to be equal with men, but want special treatment when it comes to being in a man's world and dealing with men.

Basically, she wrote a check her lip had to cash. Now she needs another man to even the odds and take up for her. That's reality. Otherwise, the man could have continued to spread. And she would have had to deal with the limited amount of space she had.

#26 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 07:45 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

@26 SEEK HELP.

#27 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-20 07:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

For what? The truth?

I don't think I'm the one that needs help..

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:01 AM | Reply

For what? The truth?

I don't think I'm the one that needs help..

#28 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:01 AM | Reply | Flag:

You condone punching a woman for no reason at all. Then you think I need help. LMFAO.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-20 08:06 AM | Reply

I didn't condone it, Laura,

Stop putting words in my mouth.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:27 AM | Reply

I didn't condone it, Laura,

Stop putting words in my mouth.

#30 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

You use double speak to cover your support. It's as plain as day.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-20 08:30 AM | Reply

Double speak?

Seek help Laura.

#32 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:31 AM | Reply

Hepeating [.] But the words are fine.
#22 | Posted by BruceBanner

Sounds to me like you're assuming a person's gender. How very non-Progressive of you.

You condone punching a woman for no reason at all.
#29 | Posted by LauraMohr

Does it matter that it was a woman? Does the fact he punched a woman make the assault more egregious in this modern age of total equality?

#33 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-20 08:43 AM | Reply

Does it matter that it was a woman? Does the fact he punched a woman make the assault more egregious in this modern age of total equality?

Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-20 08:43 AM | Reply

Sad commentary even in today's society.

#34 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-20 08:47 AM | Reply

Laura,

When does the push for total equality become an unfair advantage?

#35 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:52 AM | Reply

When does the push for total equality become an unfair advantage?

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 08:52 AM | Reply

You can have total equality without men being asses.

#36 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-20 08:57 AM | Reply

Not the question I asked, Laura.

Answer it please.

#37 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 09:05 AM | Reply

I don't get dudes who make excuses for a word like "mansplaining", which is just a term used to dismiss what a male is saying because a male is saying it.

Similarly, I don't get dudes who pay woman to beat the the hell out if them either.

FYI the dirtbag on the subway was arrested

#38 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-20 09:43 AM | Reply

"But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature."

No, that's not basic nature; not to a civilized society. We call punching--as a response to talk you disagree with--an assault.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-20 09:52 AM | Reply

Boaz must be so happy when stuff like this gets attention because the aberrant behavior of this cretin is necessary to justify his oversimplified Darwinian world view.

#40 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-20 10:22 AM | Reply

Getting punched in the face is what men call "manspreading".

#41 | Posted by Ben_Berkkake at 2017-11-20 10:44 AM | Reply

No, that's not basic nature; not to a civilized society.

Nature isn't civilized, Dan.

#42 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 11:04 AM | Reply

oversimplified Darwinian world view

Oversimplified?

Without her society to protect her, this is how this would have ended. The man punches her. Now unless she wanted to get punched again, she would not jump in his face again about manspreading. She would have dealt with the space she had or went and sat somewhere else. Jumping in the face of a man when you cannot beat said man is never a good idea. This woman found out she isn't equal with a man physically. She needed someone else to even the odds, because without someone coming to her aid, she would have just shut up and moved from the seat.

If nature hasn't taught us anything, force makes right.

#43 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-20 11:08 AM | Reply | Funny: 2

Boaz - yes men are stronger than women. But your view seems to be based on what the cretin did being expected or natural and that simply isn't the case. Most peoples' instincts go against needlessly harming others. We would not exist as a species otherwise bc we are weak animals who have to work together. Your might makes right world view simply doesn't work.

#44 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-20 11:34 AM | Reply

But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature.

A man on a subway punches a woman in the face and says he has raped women like her in the past.

I can't believe you're making excuses for him with all this demented blah blah blah about the woman somehow learning a lesson she needed to know. She is a victim. She did nothing wrong.

It isn't in our "basic nature" as men to punch women who say something we don't want to hear. No real man acts that way and no real man should in any way rationalize it.

Real life is not Conan the Barbarian cosplay, no matter how often you wish it was. Your take on this vicious subway assault is as creepy as an Alabama judge at the mall.

#45 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 01:00 PM | Reply

Something doesn't seem right here. A guy reportedly punches a woman in the face. Another guy who's much bigger and can easily detain him and implies he's an off duty cop just lets him go at the next stop? There's got to be more to this story.

#46 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-20 01:11 PM | Reply

"But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature."

Basic nature of a psychopath.

#47 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 01:17 PM | Reply

#34 Not a sad commentary, PARTICULARLY not so in today's egalitarian society. Assault is assault and it doesn't matter who commits it or whom it is committed against. I've said it before: equality is a double-edged sword. When Group A calls for total equality with Group B, they not only get equal rights, they get equal expectations and equal responsibilities. This is true regardless of who constitutes the groups. To claim only the benefits but deny the expectations and responsibilities is hypocrisy.

Let's imagine a situation wherein both players were men. Mr. A gets angry at Mr. B and says something, heated words are exchanged, and Mr. A gets punched in the mouth after insulting Mr. B. Would we be having this discussion on the DR over said altercation?

Let's take it a step further, and Laura you may be the best person to answer this. In this situation you are first Mr. A in the scenario, and then we replay the scenario but in it you are Ms. A. In which scenario would you, as Mr. A or Ms. A, be most likely to say something to the manspreader? Why?

#48 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-20 01:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Another guy who's much bigger and can easily detain him and implies he's an off duty cop just lets him go at the next stop? There's got to be more to this story.

Here's more:

www.nydailynews.com

abc7ny.com

Derek Smith has been arrested for the assault. The hero, Victor Conde, said he was afraid the situation would escalate if he tried to detain the man until cops arrived.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 01:43 PM | Reply

"Would we be having this discussion on the DR over said altercation?"

Probably not, but "equality" doesn't mean what you are playing it off as. It doesn't mean the abandonment of gender based standards, even ones that reinforce gender roles. It really is only limited to things like labor relations, where you're supposed to keep your biases in check.

If Trump gave his next speech wearing a dress, don't you think his wardrobe would be part of the discussion surrounding his speech? Of course it would.

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 01:45 PM | Reply

Would we be having this discussion on the DR over said altercation?

Why not? The story went viral because the video is compelling, not just because the victim was a female.

#51 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 01:45 PM | Reply

#49 "Woman punched by manspreading maniac getting hate mail"

That's unfair to Boaz.
All he did was send her a calmly worded email explaining the Natural Order Of Things!

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 01:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

Boaz, did you notice the manspreader is black?

Was his Natural Order upset when those SJW Republicans emancipated him 150 years ago?

#53 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-20 01:48 PM | Reply

Women want to be equal with men, but want special treatment when it comes to being in a man's world and dealing with men.

This part of Boaz's comment is the crux of his argument: Women aren't allowed to be the equals of men because they might somewhere, someday, somehow need a man's help after being the victim of a violent crime. Women need to know their place.

#54 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 02:05 PM | Reply

#50 It doesn't mean the abandonment of gender based standards, even ones that reinforce gender roles. It really is only limited to things like labor relations, where you're supposed to keep your biases in check.

I'm not talking about standards, like physical fitness standards or something like that - but your statement begs additional discussion. If there are 63 genders, do each come with gender-based standards? How do we determine which standards apply to each gender? Do we throw out gender roles altogether? The military has moved in that direction and yet only 1 of 63 genders is required to register with Selective Service, although the form does not specifically identify Cis-gender Male (it only says 'male'). Does a transgender male have to register for selective service on their 18th birthday?

#55 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-20 02:06 PM | Reply

Nature isn't civilized, Dan.

#42 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-11-20 11:04 AM | REPLY

Clearly, neither are you.

#56 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-11-20 02:06 PM | Reply

#54 Actually, RCADE, you have to think further back to something Boaz talked about at least a year ago, and he had an article that discussed it. I apologize if I do not recall it exactly, but the gist was that black women have become overly aggressive, "in your face" arguers, largely in part because they are safe in the knowledge that the men they are screaming at will not hit them like they would hit a man in the same situation.

Thus, the crux of Boaz' argument is not that women can't be the equals of men, it's that they are using a societal norm (real men don't strike women) to get away with behavior a man cannot.

#57 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-20 02:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That's an odd interaction on which to build a worldview.

Whether you're a woman or a man, it is extremely rare to get punched over what you say to somebody. I've witnessed hundreds of verbal altercations -- mainly among football fans at a game -- and only 8-10 times was a punch thrown.

I've been in only one fight as an adult, back when I was around 20, with a guy my girlfriend was secretly banging. But I've had a few ugly verbal altercations over the years, most recently a decade ago with a neighbor kicking my relatives out of the neighborhood pool. Nobody put up their dukes. (I even made peace with the neighbor in an email that evening. I didn't want the agita of having an ongoing beef with the guy, even though he was being a complete ass.)

The main reason women aren't getting punched is the same men aren't getting punched: Most of us living in this adult world don't escalate to physical violence no matter how angry we get, because we recognize that violence can make a situation spin far out of control. A punch can even kill somebody. It's not like the movies.

Has anyone reading this discussion been punched as an adult over something they said?

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 02:46 PM | Reply

The guy is likely going to prison. So in the ‘natural' point of view, the woman won. Sucks that she gets whacked in the face, but by bringing this case to the media, maybe she's making it less likely others will go through the same thing (but probably not).

I think ‘manspreading' and terms like that can be useful in bringing attention to certain issues; but when used personally, it's not useful and is asking for an escalation of the situation.

Kind of like ‘------------' or ‘girl-whining' or being ‘girl-moody'.

#59 | Posted by Snowfake at 2017-11-20 02:53 PM | Reply

Manspreading. First World Problem.

#60 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2017-11-20 02:56 PM | Reply

Men intruding physically on women in places like subways is a problem all over the world.

#61 | Posted by rcade at 2017-11-20 03:01 PM | Reply

What boaz always forgets is that our nature also forms societal bonds

#62 | Posted by truthhurts at 2017-11-20 03:05 PM | Reply

But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature.
boaz

boaz has stated before that the black culture needs to change it's image. now a black man punches a woman and he's defending the guy.

"basic nature" hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

#63 | Posted by cjk85 at 2017-11-20 03:38 PM | Reply

Re#62 - exactly. We didn't evolve to be combative badasses. For our size, we are incredibly weak compared to other animals. Chimps appear to be much smaller than us but they are four times as strong as us. We are excellent distance runners and that is about it for physical gifts. We sacrifice muscle density so that we can support big brains (which use along of energy). It is in our nature to get along for mutual gain. The idea that men just naturally fight over small disagreements is asinine.

Being an overly sensitive moron who wants to hit people for no reason is abnormal.

#64 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-20 03:55 PM | Reply

"But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature.
#26 | POSTED BY BOAZ"

Wow. Wtf, over?

#66 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2017-11-20 07:00 PM | Reply

"But the lady needs to understand that she challenged the man and his response was to punch her. That's basic nature.
#26 | POSTED BY BOAZ"

Boaz angry!

Boaz smash!

Boaz need to understand many things.

Boaz's "basic nature" not same as other men's "basic nature".

Boaz need help to understand rules of civil society.

Boaz been in jungle too long!

Boaz need to ask therapist if basic nature of Man is to punch Woman when Man "challenged" by Woman.

#67 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-20 08:09 PM | Reply

What if subway manspreader is an actual title of a fast food worker position?

#68 | Posted by sentinel at 2017-11-20 08:19 PM | Reply

the words are fine. If you're not a person who does these things, then it shouldn't bother you.

It's precisely because i'm not a person who does these things that the terms bother me. But i dont recall Bruce Banner to be someone who ever understood nuance or evem basic reading.

#69 | Posted by JOE at 2017-11-20 11:33 PM | Reply

#26 | Posted by boaz

Dude, seriously. Your world view is seriously ------ up.

#70 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I didn't condone it, Laura,

Stop putting words in my mouth.

#30 | Posted by boaz

Yeah, you did.

Own it, you POS.

#71 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:26 AM | Reply

Nature isn't civilized, Dan.

#42 | Posted by boaz

A Christian who believes we're all just animals!?!?!

EUREKA!

#72 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:29 AM | Reply

"unless she wanted to get punched again, she would not jump in his face again about manspreading."

Where in the story does it say she "jumped in his face"? You're describing something that didn't happen, all to justify punching a woman.

#73 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 01:37 AM | Reply

If nature hasn't taught us anything, force makes right.

#43 | Posted by boaz

You really are a giant sack of ----.

Don't ever EVER claim to be a Christian again as you don't have the slightest clue what the teachings actually mean.

BTW who's to say that without society she just wouldn't have jabbed a blade into his femoral artery then castrated him as he faded from consciousness due to blood loss? Your screwed up Mad Max fantasies always seem to be predicated on the notion that your "strength" would remain the same or even increase relative to those around you, particularly the "liberals".

But have you ever considered that without those around you acting civilized you may have been dead or defeated long ago? You claim the benefits of an ordered society as a win for yourself but a loss for everyone you dislike.

#74 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"when used personally, it's not useful and is asking for an escalation of the situation."

So your position is she asked for it?

Is this 2017, or are we in a time warp?

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 01:39 AM | Reply

"force makes right."

Wow, Boaz.

You've just sided with every mass murderer in history.

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 01:40 AM | Reply

No real man acts that way and no real man should in any way rationalize it.

Have you not realized yet that boaz isn't a real man? He's just a beta hypercompensating for his lack of alpha status.

#77 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:42 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Has anyone reading this discussion been punched as an adult over something they said?

#58 | Posted by rcade

Nope. And I'm an angry, abrasive MFer.(seriously, I'm a pretty big ---hole IRL)

#78 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:50 AM | Reply

Men intruding physically on women in places like subways is a problem all over the world.

#61 | Posted by rcade

LOL

#79 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:52 AM | Reply

It's precisely because i'm not a person who does these things that the terms bother me.

Yeah, the terms are pretty dumb and ironic/hypocritical.

#80 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:55 AM | Reply

It's funny to think I pooped on Boaz in his mind all it would show is that he is weak and I am strong.

Not that I'm a weirdo who poops on people.

That's normal!

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:04 AM | Reply

The main reason women aren't getting punched is the same men aren't getting punched

I don't agree. Depending on the male, most of the time they don't get punched is because of their physical bearing. Women don't get punched because society will put you in jail. Mustang is right, if it were two men instead of a woman in this, the outcome would have been totally different. Man A complains to Man B, it escalates and Man A gets punched and sits down. Man B sits back down with his space. Order has been established. Everyone else sees what happens and do not intervene. That's where it ends.

The only reason this is news is because a woman was punched. She tried to police this man, was punched. If everything were equal, she would have shut up until the possible cop came along to exert her point of view.

That's all I'm saying. Without the cop, the man spreading would have continued.

These are basic facts of life.

#82 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 08:44 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#82 You just can't help digging your hole deeper can you???

#83 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 08:45 AM | Reply

BTW who's to say that without society she just wouldn't have jabbed a blade into his femoral artery then castrated him as he faded from consciousness due to blood loss?

THERE you go! Exactly. Then the man spreading would have stopped.

That's my point.

#84 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 08:45 AM | Reply

That's where it ends.

#82 | POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2017-11-21 08:44 AM | REPLY

This isn't 1960. The attacker would face criminal charges. Police would collect the various cell phone videos as evidence.

#85 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2017-11-21 08:58 AM | Reply

Discussing civilization with Boazo is a fool's errand. He doesn't meet the barest minimum requirements to be called civilized. But given what we've learned about Alabama lately that should surprise noone.

#86 | Posted by Reagan58 at 2017-11-21 09:06 AM | Reply

Most of us living in this adult world don't escalate to physical violence no matter how angry we get, because we recognize that violence can make a situation spin far out of control.

I can see you have never lived in the ghetto or in jail.

#87 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 09:10 AM | Reply

I can see you have never lived in the ghetto or in jail.

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 09:10 AM | Reply

I spent 6 months in jail. Rarely there was a fight. It all depends on the people NOT the situation.

#88 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 09:12 AM | Reply

I don't know where you did your jail time, Laura, but being conciliatory isn't a virtue there. You will be perceived as weak. There is a paternal hierarchy in situations like that. I'm just saying we(society) are but one police strike away from that.

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 09:17 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I don't know where you did your jail time, Laura, but being conciliatory isn't a virtue there. You will be perceived as weak. There is a paternal hierarchy in situations like that. I'm just saying we(society) are but one police strike away from that.

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 09:17 AM | Reply

You live in a imaginary delusional societal make up. YOU are weak because You try too hard to appear strong. REAL mean tough guys doesn't have to go on a blog to declare his toughness. His body of work speaks for him.

#90 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 09:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#90 Hold on a sec, Laura. Boaz isn't describing some fictional Lord of the Flies scenario. Much of what he is trying to convey is daily life in many inner cities in the US. The strong control by force, the weak submit or avoid.

In case you can't tell, I like to use hypothetical situations to explain things. Here's one, in the broadest possible terms.

Person A takes offense at the actions of Person B.
Person A tells Person B that their actions are offensive.
Person B interprets Person A's words as aggression
Person B responds to perceived aggression with a physical assault.

In this scenario, who is at fault?

#91 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 09:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In this scenario, who is at fault?"

Tell you what, if you punched a woman in this situation you are a POS. Is that clear? Obfuscations on this fly in the face of the way we have, for the most part, raised our sons. You know that Mustang, you're just being argumentative, Boaz on the other hand, I suspect has anger issues with women. I would honestly be leery of being in close proximity if he is anything like his online personality. Hopefully he's not.

#92 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 09:52 AM | Reply

Laura,

I haven't touted that I'm a "tough" guy. I'm just saying what I perceive as the truth. And as much as you don't want to admit it, it is the truth.

Danni,

I don't have anger issues with women. I could care less. But I do know, if a woman approaches me like a man, she gets treated like one. Just like the woman in this article. She got treated equally like the aggressor would have done anyone else who tried to check him. But when she checked him, he responded, just like he would have probably with anyone else he perceived as being weaker than him. Just like nature intended.

That's what I'm saying.

And you, Danni, making pronouncements about my character is insulting and I'm offended.

#93 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:08 AM | Reply

Tell you what, if you punched a woman in this situation you are a POS.

So you just labeled 99% of inner city ghetto's POS...

#94 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:11 AM | Reply

#92 Slow your roll, Danni. I asked a hypothetical question that did not involve gender of either person, quantify the content of the speech, or identify the level of physical assault. I'm asking a question intended to make some people stop using their angry emotional lizard brain and start using the cognitive human portions.

The question remains. Who is at fault?

#95 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 10:12 AM | Reply

"And you, Danni, making pronouncements about my character is insulting and I'm offended."

I don't care, punch a woman and my opinion of you will be of the lowest. My own son witnessed a guy punching a woman once, he didn't know the guy, kicked his ass anyway. He told me about it, I was proud of him.

"But I do know, if a woman approaches me like a man, she gets treated like one."

Then you have serious problems. What you're really saying is that if a woman doesn't bow to your aggression then she has no right to confront you without fear of physical harm. That's just sick. Same would be true for an elderly man or perhaps just a very small man. You don't have the right to use your strength and size to force others to accept your dominance. Go live in the jungle. Try Somalia, we prefer the rule of law and decent behavior in a civilized society. I can only imagine your anger if someone punched your wife or daughter. Every woman is someone's wife or daughter.

#96 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 10:20 AM | Reply

You live in a imaginary delusional societal make up.

The irony in this statement is dripping, but I would probably be put on vacation if I respond.

#97 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:21 AM | Reply

"So you just labeled 99% of inner city ghetto's POS..."

99% of inner city dwellers would punch a woman in the face if "challenged" ?

Did you wash your hands after pulling this crap from your butt?

#98 | Posted by donnerboy at 2017-11-21 10:21 AM | Reply

What you're really saying is that if a woman doesn't bow to your aggression then she has no right to confront you without fear of physical harm.

I have limits, Danni, just like any other MAN. You aren't going to approach me in competition and expect me to pull aggression against aggression. If a woman is trying to get her point of view on me and she gets loud, mouthy or verbally aggressive, especially when I didn't, she will get treated accordingly. If women are truly equal, you don't need special treatment.

Women need to understand, when you challenge a man, men perceive that differently.

#99 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz when You reach China please let us know OK????

#100 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 10:27 AM | Reply

Boaz when You reach China please let us know OK????

#100 | Posted by LauraMohr

And when you reach reality, let me know..

#101 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:29 AM | Reply

And when you reach reality, let me know..

Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:29 AM | Reply

I live in reality hunny daily.

#102 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-11-21 10:31 AM | Reply

"Women need to understand, when you challenge a man, men perceive that differently."

Not real men. They are perfectly capable of being challenged without resorting to violence. Psychopaths need to become violent not strong men. I've know quite a few men in my life, I would never tolerate a violent a*****e for a moment. When confronted by a man who will use violence on women, for any reason, women should immediately get as far away from them as possible, report them to the police, get a restraining order and isolate these dangerous animals as much as possible. No contact with children ever.

#103 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 10:41 AM | Reply

"If a woman is trying to get her point of view on me and she gets loud, mouthy or verbally aggressive, especially when I didn't, she will get treated accordingly."

Women getting "mouthy" is reason for violence against them. Oh wow! BOAZ, you are seriously embarrassing yourself here.

#104 | Posted by danni at 2017-11-21 10:42 AM | Reply

Not real men.

That's rich. A woman defining what a man is.

Can I define what a woman is?

#105 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:52 AM | Reply

Women getting "mouthy" is reason for violence against them. Oh wow! BOAZ, you are seriously embarrassing yourself here.

I didn't say me, Danni. There are other elements of our society that does feel that way. For me, I'm not going to sit there and get berated or insulted without giving a response. And if she steps up her aggression, I'm going to step up mine.

#106 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 10:54 AM | Reply

When confronted by a man who will use violence on women, for any reason, women should immediately get as far away from them as possible, report them to the police, get a restraining order and isolate these dangerous animals as much as possible.

While I agree that there are an almost negligible number of situations in which a man striking a woman is acceptable, that number is not zero.

I'm struck by a couple of things. First is that nobody has the guts to answer my earlier question. Second is the sudden passion by a few members here on the DR to discuss gender roles as purely binary. All of the discussion is about men being physical toward women. No gray area, no discussion of whether the opinions include transgenders or any of the myriad other forms of gender identity. What if a transgender man strikes a transgender woman? Is that socially taboo for the same reasons?

#107 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 11:01 AM | Reply

I don't care, punch a woman and my opinion of you will be of the lowest.

Danni,

I'm not advocating punching women at all. I haven't said men should punch women. I notice you liberals like to place pronouncements on those who speak like you don't want them to speak. You label them as the most vile thing you can think of, especially when they cannot defend themselves.

#108 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 11:09 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I notice you liberals like to place pronouncements on those who speak like you don't want them to speak. "

Have you found in the article where the woman was up in his face, or is that lie an allowable pronouncement?

#109 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:12 AM | Reply

How she approached him is not in the article. But I wonder how she said or what she said. If she was irritated, she may have been aggressive. If she said it nicely, she shouldn't have been punched..

#110 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 11:18 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"How she approached him is not in the article."

So you lied? Why?

"If she was irritated, she may have been aggressive."

None of the witnesses made any mention of her aggression. Yet you claimed it, twice.

"If she said it nicely, she shouldn't have been punched."

Sorry, pal, that ship has sailed. YOU made up a lie about the woman, to justify an angry man punching her.

#111 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-21 11:21 AM | Reply

I never lied, where do you liberals make this crap up?

And the only time I even mentioned up in his face was in #43, and I had moved into hypotheticals then.

Sorry, pal, that ship has sailed.

Sorry yourself, YOU don't get to determine when ANY ship has sailed.

#112 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 11:31 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

#107 good points but good luck with getting responses...

My first instinct would be to block or hold a woman even if she is attacking me. I wouldn't throw punches unless I was really getting hurt or she's armed.

If a woman is going after a kid or the elderly then that would be a reason to use real force right away, imo

#113 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 11:34 AM | Reply

Human society, especially in modern cultures, has EVOLVED. It is now the NATURAL ORDER of community life that we can expect general cooperation and civility in our community interactions. We can expect that if some tries to play the 'might makes right' angle, they will be shut down by others.

Maybe among a pack of wolves or primitive cavemen Boaz' fantasy of the strongest male gets to make the decisions applies. But we are not a pack of wolves or primitive cavemen. We, as a community have EVOLVED. A woman can rightly, rationally and intelligently expect others in a group to stand up for her if a man tries to play silver back gorilla with her. The natural order among human beings in modern societies is not premised exclusively on the strength of the most aggressive individual in a public setting.

Which is why so many people such as Boaz eagerly await the collapse of society. The 'survivalist' fantasy is really just an teenage boys adolescent fantasy of using strength and aggression to prove one's own dominance over other people.

#114 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-21 11:35 AM | Reply

#113 Agreed. Someone putting their hands aggressively on my wife or daughter is going to eat fist, regardless of gender. Like I said...not zero.

#115 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 11:46 AM | Reply

#114 You're limiting the scope of discussion. What if that woman initiates the violence physically? What of the woman is a Nazi and the person who hits her is Antifa? I can find articles online arguing that it's ALWAYS okay to punch a Nazi.

#116 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 11:49 AM | Reply

Whatever Moder8.

It is now the NATURAL ORDER of community life that we can expect general cooperation

Ours is not natural. The only way your statement is true, is if that cooperation benefits ALL in the society. People will get violent when it concerns something to them personally.

And please, I don't wait on the collapse of society. I'm just pointing out these realities to make you liberals understand, those who protect you deserve to be placed on a pedestal, for without them, your ideology wouldn't exist.

#117 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 11:50 AM | Reply

It is natural. And the evidence that it is NATURAL is that it exists and evolved within the context of human society. Deal with it. You don't get to change the definition of 'natural' because you don't like the twists and turns of societal evolution.

#118 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-11-21 12:00 PM | Reply

Re#114 - you didn't go far enough. Even "cavemen" would not escalate to violence without good reason. They had to rely on each other to survive. Humans and their ancestors were never the baddest thing around. They had to rely on numbers and cooperation. Just injuring a peer could have meant death for the whole group.

Plus they were smart. If one big dude is brutalizing the rest of the group how hard would it be for someone to jab a pointed stick in his throat or drop a big rock on his head while he slept?

The idea that a hero Boaz caveman was needed to keep order is laughable. Getting along was life or death for those people.

#119 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 12:02 PM | Reply

Getting along was life or death for those people.

Actually, it wasn't. The strong was always going to eat. You think the Corky's of the caveman world were deciding who ate what and when?

#120 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 12:13 PM | Reply

"I don't know where you did your jail time, Laura, but being conciliatory isn't a virtue there. You will be perceived as weak."

Boaz did time???
Or just talking out his ass again?

#121 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:21 PM | Reply

No, I slept at a Holiday Inn last night..

I'm an expert.

#122 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 12:23 PM | Reply

#120 you're a fool who doesn't understand what we are.

We are not "the strong" of the animal kingdom. Early humans were not on top of the food chain. Nobody was trying to survive alone.

We wouldn't even have vocal chords if your science defying views were right. We evolved to live cooperatively. Deal with it, fool.

#123 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 12:31 PM | Reply

- You think the Corky's of the caveman world were deciding who ate what and when?

lol.... pretty funny from someone who has all his adult life been told what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.... not to mention what to think, when to eat, when to sleep, and who to fight.

Real tough guy.

#124 | Posted by Corky at 2017-11-21 12:36 PM | Reply

Boaz if we do a GoFundMe will you take an anthropology class at a nearby community college of your choice?

Because you are hilariously and disgustingly misinformed. Both at the same time.

#125 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I knew that one would get you Corky! :)

#126 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 12:53 PM | Reply

I cant believe how you people don't accept thousands of years of accepted history.

We evolved to live cooperatively.

Only in small groups. Outsiders were treated with suspicion. Allowing another alpha male into the circle usually meant no mating with females and eating scraps to lessor males.

#127 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 12:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#127 - you are brainwashed by Internet memes. Humans never lived in an arrangement with only one breeding male. There is no alpha.

#128 | Posted by Sully at 2017-11-21 01:25 PM | Reply

Not surprisingly, Boaz is still pushing his twisted version of reality.

#129 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 01:44 PM | Reply

Oh there has always been an alpha, Sully. That's the only way our species has survived as long as it has. Passing on resilient genes didnt just happen.

#130 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 02:07 PM | Reply

Boaz, is Donald Trump an alpha male?
Because I think I could take him in a fight.

#131 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:13 PM | Reply

Boaz, is Donald Trump an alpha male?

In our today's society, yes. In a pure sense, I don't know..

#132 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 02:28 PM | Reply

Humans never lived in an arrangement with only one breeding male. There is no alpha.

Where did you come up with that scientific pearl, Dr. Goodall?

#133 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 02:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

So there's a difference between today's society and your idealized pure society?

And which one do you think we live in?

#134 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:39 PM | Reply

Where did you come up with that scientific pearl, Dr. Goodall?

#133 | Posted by MUSTANG

pin.primate.wisc.edu

The majority of chimpanzee reproductive behavior is promiscuous, with females mating with multiple males opportunistically during estrus, though the majority of copulation occurs during the 10-day period of maximal tumescence (Goodall 1986).

Did you even bother checking before name dropping the very person who's research blows a gaping hole in your and Boaz's nonsense?

#135 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 02:45 PM | Reply

Let me guess, boaz NW flagged that without checking himself either.

Ahhh well. Righties and science. Always worlds apart and rarely in the each other's company.

#136 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 02:46 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I like the society we are in most of the time. My idealized society would be one where property rights are inviolate, the govt doesn't have much power over the lives of citizens, states have ultimate authority and there isn't any talk about race, a true United States.

#137 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 02:46 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

5 hours and not one person on this thread has had the plums to answer the two questions I posed. Let me repeat:

1) Person A takes offense at the actions of Person B.
Person A tells Person B that their actions are offensive.
Person B interprets Person A's words as aggression
Person B responds to perceived aggression with a physical assault.

In this scenario, who is at fault?

2) All of the discussion is about men being physical toward women. No gray area, no discussion of whether the opinions include transgenders or any of the myriad other forms of gender identity. What if a transgender man strikes a transgender woman? Is that socially taboo for the same reasons?

#138 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 02:49 PM | Reply

"the govt doesn't have much power over the lives of citizens, states have ultimate authority"

It's like you don't even realize you contradict yourself.

#139 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:49 PM | Reply

That's BS, JPW.

In small groups, the dominate male used to take up all the oxygen in the room. He usually kept the most beautiful and pleasing to the eye females. And those females wanted to be with him because they knew they were safe with him. Even today, men are very protective over their females.

You liberals attempt to make this simple fact of nature not true makes we wonder your belief only in sciences that promote your own world view..

#140 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 02:51 PM | Reply

"In this scenario, who is at fault?"

Whoever escalated from words to deeds.

#141 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:53 PM | Reply

5 hours and not one person on this thread has had the plums to answer the two questions I posed. Let me repeat:

Maybe because they're stupid questions?

In this scenario, who is at fault?

Easy. The person who assaults the other without any rationale or legit reason for personal defense to be utilized.

What if a transgender man strikes a transgender woman? Is that socially taboo for the same reasons?

There's no reason to discuss this as it's not what happened.

Trying to force discussions that aren't relevant isn't people dodging your question, it's them ignoring it because it's stupid.

#142 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 02:55 PM | Reply

That's BS, JPW.

LOL yeah. Science is BS. Not surprising you'd say something that stupid.

SMDH

#143 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 02:56 PM | Reply

Boaz are you a Muslim? You seem to think a man having four wives is closer to nature than Christian monogamy.

What's stopping you from living up to your alpha potential?

#144 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 02:56 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Cmon man, you can bet better at trollling than THAT!!

#145 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 02:57 PM | Reply

I like the society we are in most of the time. My idealized society would be one where property rights are inviolate, the govt doesn't have much power over the lives of citizens, states have ultimate authority and there isn't any talk about race, a true United States.

#137 | Posted by boaz

You voted for the guy who announced his candidacy by talking about race.

#146 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 02:58 PM | Reply

You liberals attempt to make this simple fact of nature not true makes we wonder your belief only in sciences that promote your own world view..

#140 | Posted by boaz

As usual, "Conservatives" project their own ------ behavior onto everyone they encounter.

And you wonder why your world view is seen as a childish caricature of adult thoughts? You essentially make ---- up and discard what reality actually says about it with some lame garbage about "liberals".

#147 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 02:58 PM | Reply

#135 If you had kept digging, you'd have learned that mountain gorillas limit male breeding almost exclusively to the alpha. Regardless, the relationship between breeding habits of chimps or gorillas and those of prehistoric man are conjecture. That means that Sullivan Goodall pulled his statement out of his bungalow.

#148 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 03:05 PM | Reply

What a load of twaddle to suggest that men and women are equal . There is no equal , only complimentary .
The different roles of men and women are built into our genetic memory over a million years .
The guys were the agressive and innovative team players , who fought off the sabre toothed tiger , hunted the wooly mammoth , and did the big muscle work .
The ladies provided a stable base for the children , attended to matters of family and personal relationship , and most importantly stopped all the men from killing each other ( mostly ) . They were the social glue that held it all together .

These complimentary skills have worked well for a couple of million years .

From another site on the subject.

#149 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 03:08 PM | Reply

Whoever escalated from words to deeds.

#141 | Posted by snoofy

And I agree. What are your views on people who believes that words are violence and that violence can be used as a response to those words?

#150 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 03:08 PM | Reply

#142 Let me know when the plum shipment arrives.

#151 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 03:09 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

And you wonder why your world view is seen as a childish caricature of adult thoughts?

And you wonder why your world view falls apart when confronted? It's simply a fantasy.

Men get angry over women for a reason. It's in our DNA to fight over women.

#152 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 03:12 PM | Reply

#148 of course it's conjecture but chimps are our closest evolutionary relatives, which is why their behavior would be the best proxy available to use as a frame work.

In either case, boaz's wierd notion that were just animals (not made in God's image apparently) has zero basis beyond he wants it to be so.

#153 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 03:17 PM | Reply

#151 plum shipment?

#154 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 03:19 PM | Reply

#154 Notify me when your --------- have dropped and you're willing to address the hypothetical yet uncomfortable question about the effect of transgenderism on traditional gender-normative taboos such as men striking women.

#155 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-21 03:23 PM | Reply

#152 falls apart? You've done nothing remotely close to confront it because you're simply asserted what you want as true while ignoring the rest as "liberal".

But since you bring up fighting over mates, what's it say about your position that most males have no trouble obtaining a mate? Or are they all alphas?

#156 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 03:24 PM | Reply

chimps are our closest evolutionary relatives, which is why their behavior would be the best proxy available to use as a frame work.

In some instances, but not all.

Our early societies were parchial. Period. And any society with weaklings in charge quickly died or were subservianted by stronger ones.

That's only a fact.

#157 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 03:25 PM | Reply

#155 lol so if I don't address an irrelevant question that isnt even remotely interesting to me to begin with means my balls haven't dropped?

🤦🏼‍♂️ I swear the colectibe IQ of this place has dropped like a rock since Trump took office.

#158 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 03:27 PM | Reply

#157 I don't deny the patriarchal nature of our society. That's not what we're arguing.

And civilizations or cultures have fallen for many many reasons throughout history, not simply because they were led by "weaklings".

#159 | Posted by jpw at 2017-11-21 03:32 PM | Reply

Our early societies were parchial. Period. And any society with weaklings in charge quickly died or were subservianted by stronger ones.

That's only a fact.

#157 | Posted by boaz

Yeah and those societies were all wiped out by societies where brains mattered more than physical strength.

No society is run by the strongest members any more. If they were, we'd never have left the caves.

Brains are more important to society and to women than physical strength. Unfortunately for you.

#160 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 03:34 PM | Reply

#159,

I would agree...

#161 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 03:38 PM | Reply

This guy shouldn't have hit the woman. He's clearly not right.

That being said, I see at least 10 people a day I'd punch if I didn't care about a criminal record. Men, women, and children.

Your results may vary, but I often find myself getting ready to pull some tailgating aggressive bag out of their car at a redlight and then notice it's some young girl or a fat woman. It used to be dudes were the jagovs behind the wheel.
I wonder if women drive like that because nobody has drug them out of their car and beat the ---- out of them?

#162 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-21 04:12 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'd punch a transgender man or woman. One wants to be a man so she'll be treated like one, and the other is a man pretending to be a woman.
In closing, both faces are punchable.

#163 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2017-11-21 04:15 PM | Reply

Lol

#164 | Posted by boaz at 2017-11-21 04:41 PM | Reply

"What are your views on people who believes that words are violence and that violence can be used as a response to those words?"

Got an example?

#165 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 07:04 PM | Reply

"traditional gender-normative taboos such as men striking women."

That's a tradition?

I guess it explains why there's never any domestic violence in America.

It's a much bigger taboo to say you're okay with hitting women than it is to actually hit them.

Chairborne might be the only woman beater here who can grasp such subtlety though.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 07:08 PM | Reply

"Our early societies were parchial."

They were matriarchal. The patriarchy was enabled by agricultural technology which is a new invention that we didn't have before the last ice age. In economic terms, the greater availability of food cheapened the value of having a womb, because now so many more women have sufficient nutrition to get pregnant and carry a baby to term. There's nothing special about the miracle of childbirth now that it's commonplace. But that's not enough for you, you want to ban abortion so women have even less power.

Here's a thought, if might makes right for men, why doesn't it apply to a woman versus a fetus?

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2017-11-21 07:15 PM | Reply

"What are your views on people who believes that words are violence and that violence can be used as a response to those words?"
-----
Got an example?

#165 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Antifa...SJW's on college campuses (they flat out state this)...

#168 | Posted by JeffJ at 2017-11-21 07:38 PM | Reply

Antifa...SJW's on college campuses (they flat out state this)...

#168 | Posted by JeffJ

Spend less time worried about ANTI fascists and more time worry about the the ACTUAL fascists that the president calls "very fine people."

#169 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-11-21 08:19 PM | Reply

"I never lied, where do you liberals make this crap up? And the only time I even mentioned up in his face was in #43"

You answered your own question, fool. You "mentioned", twice, she was up in his face. That was a lie. And any claim of "hypotheticals" is belied by the last part of your paragraph: you're specifically addressing this woman and this incident, which you've purposely mischaracterized.

#170 | Posted by Danforth at 2017-11-22 12:19 AM | Reply

"What are your views on people who believes that words are violence and that violence can be used as a response to those words?"

Got an example?

#165 | Posted by snoofy

Have you been living in an off-the-grid cave for the last year?

NYT: When is speech violence?

By all means, we should have open conversations and vigorous debate about controversial or offensive topics. But we must also halt speech that bullies and torments. From the perspective of our brain cells, the latter is literally a form of violence.

www.nytimes.com

Berkeley students chant "Speech is Violence!"

www.dailywire.com

Thinking Strategically About Free Speech and Violence

The position here is generally something like:

When fascists are permitted to speak, they spread fascism. Fascism must not be allowed to spread. Thus fascists should not be permitted to speak. Fascists cannot be reasoned with. They must be physically resisted. White supremacist or genocidal speech is in itself violence or incitement, so physically stopping fascists from speaking is only a form of self-defense.

www.currentaffairs.org

College Students: Yes, Speech Can Be Violence

Almost 40 percent [of surveyed collegians] believe that it's "sometimes appropriate" to "shout down or disrupt" a speaker. A sobering 30 percent believe that physical violence can be used to stop someone from "using hate speech or engaging in racially charged comments."

www.nationalreview.com

#171 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-22 08:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"traditional gender-normative taboos such as men striking women."

That's a tradition?

The tradition is that it's taboo for a man to hit a woman in the US, you idiot

I guess it explains why there's never any domestic violence in America.

Because nobody violates taboos or commits crimes, right?

It's a much bigger taboo to say you're okay with hitting women than it is to actually hit them.

Speech about violence is worse than the actual violence? Good GOD man, that is the dumbest thing ever uttered on the Retort, and that's saying something. FYI, you answered your own question posed in #165.

#172 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2017-11-22 08:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Almost 40 percent [of surveyed collegians] believe that it's "sometimes appropriate" to "shout down or disrupt" a speaker. A sobering 30 percent believe that physical violence can be used to stop someone from "using hate speech or engaging in racially charged comments."

The absolute best way to discourage all that speech is to walk away and completely ignore the speaker. If he/she is ignored and not getting the desired result the speech will stop. Shouting down or committing violence promotes violence and make one side as bad as the other.

#173 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2017-11-22 08:57 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort